Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo How much difference does a good CD player make ??

I am thinking of buying a new CD player and am looking at the NAD C542. I believe it is their newest model and I have seen some decent prices for it. I am using the Pioneer model that plays DVD-Audio and SACD's and about everything else along with being a DVD player. I forget the model number. Is there a big difference between a stand alone CD player for sound as opposed to an all in one like I have?? I have heard different views and I'm wondering if it would be worth it to purchase the NAD for around 350.00 or go with what I have.
Thanks in advance.......

And now you'll hear differeing views again.

How about this, buy the NAD and try it out and if you don't like it, take it back. But either way post back and let us know if you did hear any differences.

I think you will but that is my opinion only.

I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but IMO for music listening you probably won't hear much difference(if any). Check out the thread I'd posted under Advice from Axiom Owners regarding DAC, I can NOT hear any difference when compared my computer to the Sony DVD/CD player I bought from BestBuy, most DVD or CD Players have bunch of added "cool features" that are absolutely irrelevant to SQ and you don't really need those bell and whistles anyway, if you really into those stuff then go for it, it wouldn't hurt to buy one and try them for yourself. otherwise you better off stick with your current unit, unless it's broken.

IMHO, You'll get your money worthwhile and achive better SQ/Sonic improvement through amp/receiver upgrade oppose to the CD player.

I'm on the other side of the boat. I think an upgrade will be more worthwhile if you replace a CD player rather than an amp. I've tried 4 different players and they didn't sound exactly the same. In fact, the oldest, probably most least expensive player sounded the best to me, which is why I still use it. The differences were small and musically engaging (which you can't measure), but there all the same.

Todd, limiting the reply just to your specific question, i.e. does a stand alone CD player have some advantage over a CD/DVD/etc. player for playing CDs, the answer is definitely not. The CD player uses a laser with a wavelength of 780nm, which is optimum for playing CDs. The combination player uses a dual laser, 780nm for CDs, and 650nm which is optimum for DVDs/DVD-As/SACDs. Each type of disc is therefore read at the optimum wavelength required; no "compromise" which is sometimes claimed is involved.

The only thing you'd gain would be less wear and tear on a more expensive multi-format player.

Assuming you're using the digital outs (TOSlink or SPDIF - or as they're otherwise known - digital optical and digital coaxial) - it's pretty tough to come up with sound quality reasons to go to a high-end player.

Again, a bit of perspective to help see through the hype - you're sitting in front of a computer with a CD-ROM drive - just did a quick search here... a 52x LG is about $30CDN - which, even considering it doesn't supply its own power or have a screen (add a few bucks for a transformer and LED readout to put it on par with a home audio component CDP) would still make it the cheapest possible alternative, almost laughable as to build quality. How often does a CD-ROM have a read error in data? Even a single misread bit would make an application go berzerk... say the difference between a PUSH opcode and a POP opcode. If the odd little putty-coloured drive beside your knee there is of high enough quality to read data that has to be bit perfect at 16x the rate that an audio CD is read at, what's the big concern about whether or not a $160 CDP can do its job?

Bren R.

You won't hear much difference going in the same range level of gear. Your Pio will sound no difference than the NAD. If you want to hear a little bit of difference you need to look at players above the $1200+ or a different configuration CD player such one with a tubed output CD players.
For those who have "actually" tried to put their sub $500 multidisk players vs a $1500+ player and still said there is not much of a difference should get their ears and brains examined. Or the speakers they own are not articulate enough to convey that extra information.

Once again I disagree. My Denon 2815 sounds vastly different then my Denon 2800MKII when it comes to CD quality. The 2800 is by far and away a better transport. Hell it doesn't even play SACD or DVDA and the 2815 does DVDA and it still sounds better.

What's next in here, a $99.00 WalMArt DVD player is as good as a $1000.00 one?

In reply to:

---

What's next in here, a $99.00 WalMArt DVD player is as good as a $1000.00 one?

---

Actually, yes.
Although it is possible that the transport mechanism may sound different, perhaps even more quiet, but it is obvious that the home testing of these units is once again brutally flawed.
Placebo pill anyone?

Well I have a Toshiba in my bedroom that was $129.00 from WalMart and I have my trusty Denon 2800MKII downstairs. If you think they output the same quality picture more power to you. They don't look anything at all alike. Not even close.

The Toshiba has a severe Chroma problem and has trouble passing blacker then black. That is two out of about 20 differences in these players.

In reply to:

---

The Toshiba has a severe Chroma problem and has trouble passing blacker then black.

---

Here's where I switch sides.

DVD players *gasp* do make differences in their video output. Good reason for this - video processing.

Since version 1.00001 of everyone's DVD-P, they've been adding video processing circuitry, why? DVD video stinks on ice, search the forums for any of my rants on this previously. The unadultered video on DVD discs suffers from crawling blacks - you can usually see banding in close black gradients - the MPEG macroblock compression used doesn't deal with it well and you end up seeing what look like puzzle pieces changing shape in the dark areas of the screen. Again, I'm sensitive to digital aliasing in audio and video, because I've used it so long. So how did they fix this problem? They use black clamping, crushing a range of blacks down to pure black. This does get rid of the crawlies, but it also crushes the luminance channel. Throw the output of a DVD-P into a waveform monitor and you'll see there is either no detail between, say 7.5IRE and 11 IRE or that there is an extraordinary amount at 7.5IRE and the rest of the range has been expanded to fill the gap (throwing off the video gamma).

Add to that the difference in video amp circuits, internal shielding, etc, etc and you can see how different DVD players can produce different results.

Whereas you want a CD-P to pass exactly what's on a CD to the receiver, you WANT a DVD-P to do something to the video to make it more eye-friendly.

Bren R.

In reply to:

---

video processing

---

I agree with you on this one! Dam, what's up with that?

I leave for 10 minutes and the conversation goes from audio quality to video quality.
I can't keep up.

When it comes to music reproduction, personally I think the biggest limitation is speakers. I wouldn't doubt one amp could sound different than another, same as CD player, but the differences is minimal. IMO those people who fell into these kind of hype will most likely believe in the superiority of those "high end" interconnect and speaker cables that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars as well! LOL

But hey, it's your money, if it made you happier and you can afford all those high end stuff, then by all mean go for it. :-)

I think the Faroudja processing in my Denon DVD player is overrated. My old Toshiba seems just as good - if not better.

In reply to:

---

Once again I disagree. My Denon 2815 sounds vastly different then my Denon 2800MKII when it comes to CD quality. The 2800 is by far and away a better transport. Hell it doesn't even play SACD or DVDA and the 2815 does DVDA and it still sounds better.

What's next in here, a $99.00 WalMArt DVD player is as good as a $1000.00 one?

---

Please explain first what the hell your comparing to. You are not seemingly comparing apples to apples.

Well first of all I don't follow you. Secondly you are actually in agreement with me that a player that is expensive will vastly sound better than a cheaper player.
The 2815 is way cheaper than the 2800. If you actually read what I was saying I was summarizing that a really expensive player can have some advantages but not always. I do not believe that all CDs & DVDs are created equal like some people on here do.


Denon 2815 5-Disc Progressive Scan DVD-Audio/Video Changer • 10-bit, 54-MHz Video DAC • Burr-Brown 24-bit, 192-kHz Audio DACs •



Denon DVD-2800 single disc Progressive Scan DVD Player • Analog Devices 24-bit, 96-kHz Audio DACs
• HDCD decoding and audiophile circuitry
Silicon Image DVDO PureProgressive Sil504 decoding
Audio is served by an Analogue Devices differential-mode DAC with HDCD. 96kHz data is available from the digital outputs for discs that conform to the DAD (24/96 stereo) standard

Did you actually read my post or were you replying to someone else?

Saturn,

I for one am in agreement with you as I would not use a cheap dvd or cd player in my system.Yes I did try it and the sound of a Jvc dvd player was not up to par with my Sony es cd player and Msb Link Dac III combo.

In reply to:

---

Did you actually read my post or were you replying to someone else?

---

Jeeeeeeees, my post had nothing to do with yours but thanks for the tongue lashing anyway............and I'm fully aware of what DAC's both my Denons run. I was actually agreeing that a better quality CD player can and more often then not does sound better.

In reply to:

---

I think the Faroudja processing in my Denon DVD player is overrated. My old Toshiba seems just as good - if not better.

---

Ok I will bite. Before I say your wrong, what model Toshiba did you have? You may still have it, I have no idea. There are a lot of processors out there that rival Faroudja.

But......yeah there is a but............can't let it go that easy................. for you to say that Faroudja is over-rated is odd. Over-rated by who exactly? Your either trying to get something going here or you don't fully understand video processing. Faroudja is a lot of things but over-rated it is not. Silicon image maybe, Faroudja not.

Back again to the basest part of this. We've established any laser and transport can correctly read an audio CD and send on the digital bitstream to a receiver, so any component that reads a CD and sounds different (as so many have attested to) is doing some sort of signal processing.

Flat response throughout the sound path is valued. These players are coloured (something that would be shunned in a speaker!!), therefore, should any CD-P that doesn't accurately relate the data off a CD be shunned as well? Isn't that the whole point of a CD-P? Get the information to be processed to the component that is to process it? That would mean people are paying a premium for a coloured component.

Bren R.

Not me, I didn't pay a premium price for my Sony Changer. I don't know if it colors the sound or not, but it sounds better than my other DAC's for probably less than them too. You do have a point about speakers being shunned for coloring sound.

Bren;
If you are saying anything that colors the sound should be shunned...then why does close to 98% of the professional guitarist use Tube amps to play their instruments rather than the solid state amps?

Who says people are paying for coloured components. It maybe the premium components that can deliver this true sounds. The cheap companent just barely pass the minimum to convey that stream.
Have you actually given premium compnents a critical listen...and we are not talking the Sony's, Denon's , Rotels with the other mass market brands. I'm looking into the Krells, Mark Levinsons, Cary Audio type gear.

Personally, I wouldn't call NAD or Rotel mass market gear.

Actually I would. So yes it maybe a tad bit more expensive but not much more than the Sony or Yammy or Denon. I used to own NAD and Rotel. I sold my Rotel RSX1065 flagship receiver to the Pioneer 53TX because the 53TX seemingly sounded better than the RSX1065 at the same level. Actually the 53TX really sounded better with the Direct CD feature. The RSX1065 did not have that feature. The NAD was annoying because when driven hard that damn fan would go on...specially when running a 6.1 setup with all speakers in the 6ohm load that are inefficient...old KEF.

In reply to:

---

If you are saying anything that colors the sound should be shunned...then why does close to 98% of the professional guitarist use Tube amps to play their instruments rather than the solid state amps?

---

Ahh, but at what stage is the "tube" sound added with tube amp heads? Pre-mixing, pre-mastering... the sound of the guitar is shaped, mixed, mastered and put to disc. Once it's on the CD - you want the cleanest possible reproduction of what's on the CD. Thus, solid state electronics from there on. CDs aren't mixed "cold" so that a "warm" CD-P will bring them back up to room temperature - what's on the disc is what's meant to be heard.

Bren R.

I thought guitarists used tube amps because they clip relatively gently so you can overdrive the amp and use the clipping to turn a "twang" into a fat, rich sound (aka "the Marshall sound").

Tube amps are used more like effects pedals than like home electronics.

Bren: I get what your saying about when the tube is added.

But how the hell did we get into the point of "coloring" I never said any of my gear "coloured" the sound.

bridgeman yes I agree with you there. But my point was some people did not agree that we should color the sound. I say in some instance some of the musicians intentionally color the sounds such as when using a tube amp in live playing to twang into a fat rich sound.

Yes... "fat", "organic", "warm", "fuzzy"... call it "Harold" if you want, but that's the reason musicians play through tube amps. Bro's got an apartment full of SWR and Ampeg gear - all tube. I played guitar (back when I was guitarded) through a custom Johnson tube amp... musicians play through tubes to get that sound - if you plugged straight into a board and recorded in Pro Tools, it would sound lifeless and sterile.

But once the sound is captured... once you've got the sound you want, and the glass master is made and CDs are pressed from it, you don't want to add another layer of "Harold" at the listening stage - especially because tubes don't all sound alike, they deteriorate with age (they're glorified light bulbs, really), they sound different at different temperatures, humidity levels, barometric pressures, with different levels of estrogen in the room... all these factors. From CD to speaker, one or two things should shape the sound, the receiver and an EQ.

Bren R.

Saturn,

Again - we know that any laser/transport can communicate a CD bitstream to a receiver (as I mentioned before - even the $30 CD-ROM drive in a computer is bit-perfect, if it wasn't - data would be corrupted).

So (1) any CD-P is capable of sending a perfect (or very nearly so) bitstream to a receiver. That's a given based on how well even cheap CD-ROM drives can deliver perfect data (even at 16x the speed of redbook audio CDs), which, mystique or no, is all that happens during a read of a CD and output to a digital out (TOS or SPDIF).

If your gear sounds different than these cheap CD-Ps, your gear must be sending a different bitstream than the cheap CD-P (which under (1) above, we proved was a perfect or near perfect signal).

Therefore, if your signal differs from the perfect signal, your equipment must be coloured.

Bren R.

I haven't made any further replies here because it's nearly impossible to intelligently discuss an audio topic with those who ignore well-established principles of audio engineering science and instead mindlessly repeat the mantra "Just trust your ears". However, an interesting side issue is the use of guitar amps to intentionally distort the sound and here engineer and physicist John Murphy discusses amps in general and in particular how a solid state device can be used to emulate more simply the "sound" desired with guitar amps.

In reply to:

---

Personally, I wouldn't call NAD or Rotel mass market gear.

---

I like them both (I actually like them both a lot!) but I would call them mass market also. Heck a lot of Rotels DVD players are nothing more then re-branded JVC's. NAD and Rotel make some very nice stuff and I don't think calling it mass market is a negative when put into the right perspective.

In reply to:

---

I haven't made any further replies here because it's nearly impossible to intelligently discuss an audio topic with those who ignore well-established principles of audio engineering science

---

Ah yes we all ignore science and the science types hide behind it. Anytime anybody disagrees with science, we get it force fed to us with nothing but contempt. Which of us is worse? Those that don't feel the need to scientifically justify what we are hearing or those that do? If it sounds good, it's all good regrdless of what science tells me.

There is an interesting point coming out in this thread :

Cheap CD players may be able to sound very good (drive mech notwithstanding) since all they are supposed to do is pass along a bitstream... but of course this only works if you are connected digitally.

If your cheap CD player has an analog feed to the receiver (hmmm, wondered what that connector on the back was for) then all bets are off -- although I guess one could argue that it's harder to cut corners and screw up the relatively simple CD electronics than it is to mess up the processing required on a DVD player.

I can see how the next argument in here is going to go, which is better for critical listening digital or analog?

Simple... Use digital if your DACs are better in your receiver (or seperate DAC if you have one) and analog if the CDP has better DACs. With digital, though, you have the added advantage of leaving it in digital format as long as possible, minimizing noise.

Dam, that was easy!.....and I think I even agree with you!

There are several unintended and problematic problems that occur in the conversion of digital data to analog signal. One is called "jitter" and remains a difficulty to this day. Jitter is measured in picoseconds, or trillionths of a second...yes, trillionths! Jitter occurs "when the distance between digital information, in time, is incorrect" (from Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity). When an "off" bit is followed by an "on" bit, and the "off" bit is read for even a tad too long a period of time, it crowds on to the time that the "on" bit would be normally read and confuses the interpretation.
This is a simplification of a very complicated factor, but regardless it is the timing of the data stream that is involved where jitter is concerned.
Many audio engineers feel jitter is not really an audible problem and dismiss it as unimportant. However, most new machines are being designed with low jitter in mind. A very common technique to reduce jitter is to store the digital data from the CD in a memory buffer where it can be reclocked and fed to the DAC in precise sequence. Vibration can also adversely affect CD player performance by causing jitter. To help eliminate vibration, use a quality damped housing.
The other big issue is the fact that it's difficult to accurately portray a complex audio signal in just 44,100 samples of 16-bits per second. DVDs we use today for video use 192,000 samples per second and produce 24-bit words of data! This is dramatically more data being recorded than that used in CDs. As such, the quality of the data is substantially better, which translates into noticeably better sound. DVD-A and SACD have up to 24 bit words collected at 192kHz to begin with, and the sound quality is spectacular.
Its very common in todays CD players to use something called "upsampling." Because modern DACs can handle the higher sampling rates and longer word lengths, some players have a chip that "upsamples" the data to higher rates. The upsampler tries to "interpolate" what the samples would have been if the original music had been sampled at the higher rate. The results are often quite good, but of course, nothing is better than having the actual music samples. Regardless of the tools used to defeat jitter or lack of samples, sound quality is the ultimate basis for a final decision on whether to purchase a particular CD player.
If you can ask for the specification on this if it is available when considering your purchase, do so. Seek the player with the lowest jitter. Jitter rates of 30 picoseconds or less are found in top quality CD players. CD players with high jitter can sound harsh and also lose fine detail, including the upper natural harmonics.

Oops... jitter. Again, a minor problem for almost all players... going back to a computer CD-ROM being the worst possible permutation of a laser and transport - does anyone here "rip" wav files from CDs?

I've done a lot of it, and received maybe 3 jitter warnings in the last 6 years... that's 3 samples (1/15,000 of a second total) in over 60 hours worth of music.

Hmm... I guess it's a bigger deal if, say, your CD-P is on top of your sub maybe?

Bren R.

Graphs and comparisons interpreted with relation to the extremes of human hearing, please.

In reply to:

---

Saturn,

Again - we know that any laser/transport can communicate a CD bitstream to a receiver (as I mentioned before - even the $30 CD-ROM drive in a computer is bit-perfect, if it wasn't - data would be corrupted).

So (1) any CD-P is capable of sending a perfect (or very nearly so) bitstream to a receiver. That's a given based on how well even cheap CD-ROM drives can deliver perfect data (even at 16x the speed of redbook audio CDs), which, mystique or no, is all that happens during a read of a CD and output to a digital out (TOS or SPDIF).

If your gear sounds different than these cheap CD-Ps, your gear must be sending a different bitstream than the cheap CD-P (which under (1) above, we proved was a perfect or near perfect signal).

Therefore, if your signal differs from the perfect signal, your equipment must be coloured.

---

You are incorrect in the assumption that I use my receiver to process the bitstream.
I use my CD player which has its built in DACs and pushes the anolog signal to an integrated amp. My HTPC has a REv 7.1 which has its own DACs and pushes the anolog signal into another input of the integrated amp.

So you statement about "your gear sounds different than these cheap CD-Ps, your gear must be sending a different bitstream than the cheap CD-P " is an incorrect assumption since I do not send a digital bitstream but an anolog signal.

In another thread someone listed links to other players which was connected to a recording devices which records amplitude, waveform and jitter. And to my eyes all look different.

I can see this coming from a mile away.

Your going to say that those measurements can not be heard by the audible ear. I say some can be heard. I have listen to many I mean MANY CD player and sound cards and multi player and most sound the same...SOME a few some do sound different when you have them A-B.

So you wanted measurable proof .. then those links show it. What those measurements not good enough for you?

Yeah all these CD player are equal.

Looks like the top one and bottom one are screwing up the signal. That flat one would be the way to go, right?

Hey BigWill;

Well it seems that way. Lets go and buy a SCD-XA9000ES SACD player ...its only umm ... $2999

Last post was just showing that not all Cd players outputs the same way hence maybe I heard a difference. Be it good or bad it is seemingly different. Will my ears able to detect it..I dunno..I have not compared any of those against each other personally. I have compared others though.
Have the people who believe "All CD players sound alike" actually tried out what they believe in instead of regurgitating other people dogmas..some have some havent.

fluke, there are several things wrong with this post.
Other than the knowledge you provided having been discussed to death already on this forum, nothing new has been gained.
Jitter?
Do a search and read some of the replies from sushi and Semi-On.

You statement about audio signal sampling compares an audio vs. video signal sampling rats which are not the same. You cannot talk about sampling rates b/w the two with similar or different results. Video sampling is higher than audio for obvious reasons. Video capturing requires huge amounts more data.

Saturn,
One must compare apples to apples and we both know that comparing tubes to solid state is not equivalent.

Don't get stuck on the words out of context thing that Alan brought up the other day. People are not saying ALL cdp sound the same. Obviously if some have tubed outputs then by their very design they SHOULDN'T sound the same.
Keep within the context of the discussion.

Take a Musical Fidelity solid state cdp and listen to it vs. the $150 Denon from Walmart. Get 50 other ppl to do the same, but in a general blind test, even if at home. Do these same Stereophile electronic tests that so many ppl like to refer to and then come back and we'll check out some results.

saturn, did the site you sourced those graphs from measure the outputs from any consumer level players? I would be curious to see how the various players compare.

In reply to:

---

Take a Musical Fidelity solid state cdp and listen to it vs. the $150 Denon from Walmart. Get 50 other ppl to do the same, but in a general blind test, even if at home. Do these same Stereophile electronic tests that so many ppl like to refer to and then come back and we'll check out some results

---

How am I going to get 50 ppl to do that. Also I have not seen proof anywhere that this has been done as you described. I see people saying test have been done in NRC in Ottawa but I HAVE NOT SEEN PROOF that it has occured. I just get heresay that this EE or this scientist said ... blah blah...

In reply to:

---

Don't get stuck on the words out of context thing that Alan brought up the other day. People are not saying ALL cdp sound the same. Obviously if some have tubed outputs then by their very design they SHOULDN'T sound the same.
Keep within the context of the discussion.

---

Well people HAVE BEEN saying all should sound the same.
No one should by an expensive player over a cheap player. Everyone should go out and buy a walmart brand since no one can tell a diffrence between that and a Krell SACD playing Cd's.

In reply to:

---

BrenR:
If your gear sounds different than these cheap CD-Ps, your gear must be sending a different bitstream than the cheap CD-P (which under (1) above, we proved was a perfect or near perfect signal).
Therefore, if your signal differs from the perfect signal, your equipment must be coloured.

---

In reply to:

---

Johnk:
it's nearly impossible to intelligently discuss an audio topic with those who ignore well-established principles of audio engineering science and instead mindlessly repeat the mantra "Just trust your ears".

---

In reply to:

---

Demasoni:
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but IMO for music listening you probably won't hear much difference

---

Based on my statements it seems I have been proven guilty as charge and I have to prove my innocence and justify my point.

Bigwill: Sorry Stereophile has links to those graphs pointed out by Fluke. But they only measure the exotic priced stuff. I looked around for a generic player review but did not find any.

In reply to:

---

How am I going to get 50 ppl to do that. Also I have not seen proof anywhere that this has been done as you described.

---

Who said science was easy or fast?
It is not.
And again, this is why the science method does not suit the home audiophile. It becomes disregarded and ultimately disrespected. The typical user believes they can do the listening w/o controls and be perfectly accurate in their assessment. This just is not possible, but try explaining that to them.
Eeech.
Earfuls of "i know what i heard".
At that point it is just our human ego responding in a not-so-surprising way. Sometimes i wonder which is the greater drive for man, greed or pride.
Hmm, now that i think about it, lust is probably pretty high on that scale too.

Anyways, you could cut down the 50 ppl and detailed electronics test to say 3 or 4 ppl to make things easier for the home user, but the honest and properly setup blind test part is still highly necessary!!
The question is, if you come back here tomorrow and say you performed just that type of test, would anyone believe you?
Hence why one must continually go back to the idea of finding research in science journals which have been peer reviewed, .....etc etc etc
Oh what a tangled web....

In reply to:

---

I see people saying test have been done in NRC in Ottawa but I HAVE NOT SEEN PROOF that it has occured. I just get heresay that this EE or this scientist said ... blah blah..

---

Floyd Toole published a bunch of stuff in the early 80s in science journals. Ian and Alan played a part in the research and/or the writing of the layman version of those articles in AudioScene Canada (later Audio/Video Canada then Sound Canada magazine, later Sound&Vision) which Alan edited until 1996. I don't believe that these articles which dispelled some of the audio myths went over very well with many audiophiles (or companies for that matter).
Since then, in house tests at Axiom have continued but probably on a lesser, more informal scale (Alan can chime in if he knows of anything that continues at the NRC) but this information may not have been published. Axiom certainly has enough employees along with the equipment setup to do blind tests of equipment, but why bother? It is time consuming (as mentioned) and may not be of any benefit to the company. (e.g. why would Axiom publish material saying all cdps sound the same? How does that help their bottom line?)

In reply to:

---

Everyone should go out and buy a walmart brand since no one can tell a diffrence between that and a Krell SACD playing Cd's.

---

Are we talking about SACD vs cd here or just cd vs cd?

"$150 Denon from Walmart" Are Walmart's different in Canada?

In reply to:

---

Are Walmart's different in Canada?

---

I don't know. I never frequent them.
You could substitute the word "Denon" for something more commonly found there. Perhaps JVC? or Panasonic? or Toshiba?

Too bad they didn't review any of the stuff everybody has. I'd be willing to bet that they would all look about the same anyway - maybe like that expensive Sonys chart?
Really, I just wanted to try out my new Oktoberfest-themed avatar. TADA!!

Oops, Saturn - you missed a part of my quote there...

I've maintained through the thread the DIGITAL OUTS of CD players.

If you use the analog outs on a Oh! Knob Kjob hacked Marantz, of course you'll end up with a different signal and response curve - you're using a lightbulb as a pre-amp!

Bren R.

Oh! Knob Kjob?!?!? you guys are funny...heheh.

"the DIGITAL OUTS of CD players."

Can I ask you why that is? Call me old school but I use analog cables for everything except DD/DTS. I always have spare cables laying around, never any toslink cables. I assume that ANALOG is always used. Am I an oddball?

Matt, there's a reason to use the digital output on your player even for CDs. If you use any type of processing on them in your 884(e.g. bass management for your sub or surround processing such as DPLII)rather than feeding the signals straight through, the processing has to be done digitally. So, the analog input would first have to be reconverted to digital by the ADC in the receiver, processed, and then again converted to analog by the receiver DACs for amplification. It's questionable how much these extra conversions mean, but they can't help and there's no good reason for the complication. Incidentally, a "digital" cable(usually meaning one with 75ohm impedance)doesn't have to necessarily be used on the digital output if you don't have one handy. The 75ohm impedance would only become significant at the wavelengths used in CDs if the cable was longer than about 40 feet. For the more common connection distances of a few feet an "analog"(i.e. not 75ohm)"RCA" cable works just as well.

I understand that any RCA tipped cable will work as a coax out ( My sub cable is a long non "subwoofer" coax ), but my old Sony changer only has a toslink out. Plus, when I compared the DAC's in my Denon, old Sony STR DE 595, and DVP 755V, the old 5 disc changer sounded the best! I don't know if the "degradation" makes the sound more appealing but the SOB sounds great through my Axioms. I don't feel the need to go buy a toslink cable. My question is still, am I the only person in the semi-audiophile world that uses analog cables?

From other threads it seems that a lot of people still favour analog connections. Have to admit I don't understand why -- in my case it's cause my stereo receiver doesn't HAVE any digital inputs except for the remote control.

My H-K 5 disc is set up through the analog outs - because it feeds into the line in on my soundcard.

I play CDs through the DVD player in the HT which is, of course, hooked up via SPDIF.

Bren R.

Bren R.

my stereo receiver doesn't has any digital in so analog is the one and only option as well. :-)

Matt, one further point is that just listening to the three components didn't necessarily "compare" their DACs. Possibly the old changer had a slightly higher output which is almost always interpreted as "better". It's highly likely that the Denon has measurably the best DACs, but there may be little or no real audible difference.

See, the thing about that is, I found SACD playback through my DVP 755V to be exceptional (although, to be honest I have no comparison to other SACD players) but the redbook didn't sound as good as my changer, and I thought How could this be? The 755V should theoretically have better DAC's, but then I read in The Absolute Sound a review that stated exactly what I had heard. Call it a coincidence or whatever, but I heard a difference and apparently so did a professional reviewer ( I usually don't lend pro reviews about components any ethos, but he confirmed what I heard! ). So although I don't prescribe to the idea that amps sound different other than massive amounts of power in comparison to weak amps, I do believe CDP's sound different. Very slight mind you, but different none the less.

You could be right that there may have been a difference in SPL output and the placebo effect could have taken place, but I feel that the difference is not psychological. Now, I don't feel the need to spend $1000+ on a CD player like Saturn does, but I want something better than a $39 crap Sherwood. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are hearing a difference, but I have and thats all that really matters.

In reply to:

---

You could be right that there may have been a difference in SPL output and the placebo effect could have taken place, but I feel that the difference is not psychological. Now, I don't feel the need to spend $1000+ on a CD player like Saturn does, but I want something better than a $39 crap Sherwood. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are hearing a difference, but I have and thats all that really matters.

---

In a nasally Darth Vader voice: "Luke come to the dark side."


ps: I have ruled out the output issue by using a passive preamp and increasing or decreasing output in my tests before it gets to the integrated amp.